Anarchist Zine Archive

ANARCHISTNEWS.ORG SERIES 1

Interview of ITS

with the Mexican press

original interview found on the Facebook page of
Mexican journalist Ciro Gomez Leyva
comments from anarchistnews.org

Interview of the In the Morning (Por La Manana - EPM) Team
with the group "Individualists Tending Toward the Wild" after
it took responsibility for the murder of Jose Jaime Barrera
Moreno, Head of Services in the Department of Chemistry of
the UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico)

July 1, 2016

EPM: Why kill?

ITS: Why not? Is it a sin? A crime? Is it bad? Someone cer-
tainly said, “yes” to one of those questions.

We respond to be clear that we kill because this is WAR.
We do not recognize any other authority but the authority of
our pagan deities tied to nature and against Catholicism and
the Judeo-Christian god. These gods push us toward confron-
tation.

We kill because we do not recognize any other law but
the natural laws that govern the whole of this dead world. We
kill because we reject all morality that they seek to impose on

us. We kill because we consider it neither “good” nor evil” but
rather it is a response from our individuality to all of the
destruction that human progress generates. Within the
specter of terrorism, killing can be a strategy, a call, or a
warning for what will follow. . .

Getting to the main point, we killed the head of Chemi-
cal Services of the UNAM to remind people that we can
attack anyone at anytime within this university. It is to show
that our objectives have widened since 201 1. At that time, we
targeted the scientists and investigators. Today the entire
university community can be and are the target. Why? For the
mere reason that they form part of the student community of
this institution of higher education devoted to progress.

We warned the UNAM authorities in past months that if
our actions continued to be silenced, there would be conse-
quences. The result was this scandalous death within the
University City that serves as a lesson. It doesn’t matter to us

1

that it was just a worker. It would have been the same to us if
it had been a student, or a teacher, or best case scenario, a
renowned scientist. The real target, the UNAM, was struck
again, the authorities are demoralized by it, and we have
another death to our name.

EPM: How can you prove that this was done by your

group ?

ITS: The proof is in the facts of the case. There was nothing
missing off of his person. It wasn’t a robbery. The body was
found in a place where there were no cameras. This indicates a
direct assault and that’s it. We know that the Mexico City
police is already preparing its incompetent and idiotic “inves-
tigation” (like always) to indicate that it wasn’t us in order to
not cause alarm among the university community.

We thought of scalping him as proof but that wasn’t
possible at the time. As we wrote in our communique, that’ll
be for next time. You and everyone else can think what you
like, that it was a common mugging, a personal vendetta by
people from his neighborhood, that it was a mistake, etc. But
our record doesn’t lie. This isn’t our first time doing this, we
have a reputation. We have demonstrated with this and other
actions that we aren’t playing around.

EPM: How many targets do you have?

ITS: Our concrete target is all of civilization, the universities
and companies that train slaves so that this system keeps
growing, as well as malls and institutions that fill minds with
garbage and make sheep that go directly to the slaughter. (By
that statement we aren’t supporting “mass society,” which by its
very existence threatens the Earth with destruction.) We attack
the symbols of modernity, religion, technology, and progress.
We attack directly those who are responsible for the spread of
the urban stain that swallows up the last surviving wild places.

In summary, we, the eco-extremists, are against human
progress that corrupts and degrades all that is beautiful in this

world: that progress that makes everything artificial, mechanical,
gray, and sad. We don’t tolerate it, so we have been at war with
this civilization and disgusting progress for some years now.

EPM: They’ve never arrested anyone from your group?
ITS: In 2011, after blowing up two investigators from the Tec
of Monterrey Atizapan Campus, we said that the PGR (The
Office of the Attorney General) and the other security institu-
tions were a JOKE, and we’ll keep saying it. Up until now, no
one from our group has ever been arrested.

EPM: To what are you referring when you mention the
attacks of April 25th and 8th?

ITS: We have to clarify here that ITS was NOT responsible for
the attack on April 8th at the University City. This was the
work of another eco-extremist group from our tendency, and
we mentioned it in our last communique to show that the
university authorities silenced these attacks. On the other
hand, the April 25th attack was part of a coordinated opera-
tion of ITS groups in Mexico, Chile, and Argentina.

- April 6th: The “Mystical Horde of the Forest” abandoned an
explosive device in the Department of Physical Sciences and
Mathematics at the University of Chile in Santiago, although
they found the device before it exploded. This generated a
great deal of commotion among the university community
in the country of earthquakes.

- April 12th: The group, “Ouroboros Silvestre” detonated an
explosive in front of the University of Ecatepec in Mexico
State, only a few meters from the Municipal Palace in down-
town San Cristobal. The device exploded but no further
details are known.

The same day the same group abandoned a timed explosive
device in the Comunidad Educativa Hispanoamericana in
the same municipality. The device exploded and wounded
one of the security guards at the institution when he picked
it up. This act was silenced by the media and the authorities

3

of the municipality, who stated that the device exploded
without any causalities and only resulted in material dam-
ages.

- April 19th: The Group “Fury of the Lynx” detonated a home-
made explosive device at one of the entrances of the Tec de
Monterrey Mexico City Campus in Tlalpan, without more
details being known.

- April 21st: The Group, “Wild Constellations” abandoned a
package bomb within the National Technological University
in Buenos Aires, Argentina. No further details are known
due to the silencing of the action by the authorities.

- April 25th: The “Hidden Fury of the Lynx” group abandoned
a timed explosive device also at the Comunidad Educativa
Hispanoamericana in Ecatepec, but this time in the Archi-
tecture Department, which detonated but no further details
are known.

The same day, the same group abandoned an explosive device
of similar make in the Engineering Department, specifically in
A Building, but further details are not known. All of these
attacks were carried out by groups affiliated with ITS and
responsibility was taken for them in our seventh communique.

EPM: Who were you attacking?

ITS: The April 25th attacks in the University City in particular
were symbolically and materially against the UNAM and any
person in that university who happened to be in the vicinity
when the explosives detonated. It’s false what the media is
reporting, namely, that the April 25th attacks were against the
Chief of Chemical Services in particular. That’s a lie.

EPM: If you don’t believe in a better tomorrow, and are
not revolutionaries, what are you asking for? What is your goal?
ITS: We’re not asking for anything. We don’t have demands and
we aren’t petitioning for anything. Can we negotiate concern-
ing the loss of our natural human roots that resists the artifici-
ality of civilization? Of course not. There’s no negotiation here

or roundtable talks, none of that. We don’t believe in revolu-
tions because these are always directed to “solving problems, to
constructing something “newer and better”. Let’s just say that
the era of “revolutions” and “revolutionaries” is over. There is
no “revolution” that can change a negative thing into a positive
one since all today is corrupted. Everything’s for sale, because
what drives the world today is not political but economic
power. Revolutions are a thing of the past, and we’ve under-
stood this quite well. We don’t want to solve any problems here,
we aren’t proposing anything to anyone. We aren’t trying to
change the world, and we don’t want the masses to join us.
Enough with the bargain basement utopias! Enough with the
thinking that we can have a better world! Look around you, we
are surrounded by the horrors created by this civilization, by
an alienating technological reality (social media, telephones).
We breathe the thick air of this dirty city. The roads full of cars;
see the masses pressed up against each other on buses and on
the metro. You can see on their faces that they’ve had it up to
here with more of the same. Economic power is had by the few;
they live in luxury and are surrounded by money and comfort.
The media is sold to the highest bidder. If people protest, they
are disappeared and killed. Social tensions heighten, and when
it seems like things are finally going to explode, it all returns to
normal, or another kind of “normal” at the most. That’s why
we’ve stopped believing in a better tomorrow, because the deca-
dent present is all we have, and in the present, all that we see is
progress without brakes leading us over the civilized cliff.

Civilization is rotten and it keeps corroding but advanc-
ing at the same time. We would love it if we could make it
collapse with our own hands, but that would be another
childish desire. We’re not betting on the collapse of civiliza-
tion, nor is its destruction one of our goals. Let that be clear.

On the philosophical front we are pessimists since we
have seen all that is beautiful to us, namely nature, be lost, and
it is being pushed closer to extinction. There’s nothing for us

5

to fight for, except for our own individualities. We continue to
be human and not robots. We are the Wild Nature that is left,
the last of the last. We continue to consider ourselves part of
nature and not its owner. We eco-extremists are rescuing our
primitive roots. Among these is confrontation, the struggle
that has identified us as the people of this land, sons of the
mesquite and the coyote. We are at war with those who seek to
domesticate us, just as our wildest ancestors were, who did not
allow themselves to be subjugated by the Europeans who
invaded the Gran Chichimeca.

Eco-extremists are domesticated animals who still retain
their instincts. For most this will surely be “incoherent” as we
say all this yet still use technology. We state that we don’t
hesitate to use it to achieve our immediate goals. This is a fact,
it doesn’t matter to us one bit if we fall into “inconsistencies”
here. We don’t care what anyone thinks, really. One of ITS
and eco-extremism’s goals is attack, it’s to return the blows
that Wild Nature has received without fashioning ourselves as
“revolutionaries”. We do this disinterestedly guided by our
egoist impulses. Eco-extremists are like the bees that sting
leaving the stinger in the victim, knowing that they will die in
the process. In this case, the victim is civilization, and we
know that we aren’t going to come out of this war victorious.

This will seem to you like we are “mentally disturbed or
unbalanced”, but look, nihilist eco-extremism is a tendency
that was practically born in Mexico. It has since been taken
up by individualists in Chile, Argentina, and Europe. So we’re
not the only crazy ones here at least.

Perhaps this leaves more questions than answers at this
point, but one thing is clear: what’s done is done.

For the internationalization of the Eco-extremist Mafia!
For the extreme defense of Wild Nature! Death to the hyper-
civilized!

Individualists Tending Toward the Wild

Mexico

Tags:

ITS

Eco-extremism
22712 reads

Comments

Anonymous Mon, 07/04/2016 - 01:53

Murdering someone you don't have an interpersonal group
grievence with is the very definition of being hyper-civilized.
Why not kill your boss first? Or your undoubtedly rich parents?

Anonymous Mon, 07/04/201 6-21:14

If someone indirectly contributes strongly to the thing(s)/
event(s) that make(s) your life shit, why do you have no griev-
ance with them? Why does the interpersonal relationship
matter?

Anonymous Mon, 07/04/2016 - 03:52

"They killed someone OMG they must be cops! They have rich
daddy issues... What, someone lit some garbage cans on fire?
That's totes legit. That's real anarchy..." LOL modern anarchism
is such a Judeo-Christian religion it's not even funny anymore.
You should just elect a Pope and be done with it. I'm sure Zerzan
wouldn't mind the honor.

Anonymous Mon, 07/04/2016 - 07:46

Seriously, you killed someone for anti-civ reasons, therefore you
(somehow) must have rich parents, therefore... you're a bad person
or something? What in the living fuck can that mean? You anon
critics get more pathetic and less coherent by the day. Your book
says that the *meek* shall inherit the Earth, not the moronic.
Anarchists bray and bray for some imagined violent uprising,
then turn tail and point the finger when someone actually does
something violent.

7

V

Mon, 07/04/2016 - 10:40

Oh for fuck sake, knock it off. If ITS had killed the Mexican
President or the head of a large corporation, no anarchist on
here would be 'turning tail' or wringing their hands over it,
they'd be celebrating and commending it.

These ITS idiots are just killing random people for 'no reason'
(their own words), no different than a serial killer. I'm sure you
can't wait till they starting raping elderly blind women.

P Mon, 07/04/2016 -21:24

You are strongly reifying the state if you think the mexican
president/big time ceos actually have more control over you
than the average joe individual. The state is a complicated series
of social relationships and nothing more.

v Tue, 07/05/2016 - 19:44

Please tell me oh wise one, how does an "average joe individual"
have more control over my life than a head of state?

P Tue, 07/05/2016 -21:14

I did not say that an average individual has more control over
anyone than a head of state. But control does not work as you
seem to think it does.

Let's Head of State creates Situation H. Individual $ decides
Situation H does not apply to them. Individual Pops is on the
fence. Individual Pops could also decide Situation H does not
apply to Individual $, in which case Individual $ gains more
freedom. Or, Individual Pops could decide Situation H does
indeed apply to Individual $, at which point they could either
take personal action against Individual $ or they could bureau-
cratically attack Individual $ by telling Law Defender Corps
00004 to go after them.

Head of State has no idea who Individual $ is. Individual Pops
could make all the difference in Individual $'s life.

Obviously, if every individual stopped believing in the reification
of Head of State, Head of State would have no power. It is the

relationship that each individual has with Head of State and with
each other individual (and non human) they encounter that gives
Head of State power. Head of State cannot enforce their power
without many individuals. Each individual can choose to believe
in the reification of Head of State and therefore to enforce the
power of Head of State or they can choose to exist in other ways.

N Wed, 07/06/2016 -07:53

I know what to do! - let's try: Logic!!

Saying "the mexican president/big time ceos [sic]" does *NOT*
"have more control over you than the average joe individual" IS
NOT THE SAME AS

Saying "an average individual has more control over anyone than
a head of state."

It's like: A is not greater than B does not mean

Therefore, B is greater than A

Anonymous Wed, 07/06/2016 - 12:21

You are playing semantic games. But it doesn't matter. The
statement "the mexican president/big time ceos does not have
more control over you than the average joe individual" is false
anyway. The head of state does have more control over people's
lives than the average joe individual. And their death would be
welcome by anarchists, which is the point I was making.

N Wed, 07/06/2016 - 14:03

Not that I'm usually this aggro about logic, but yes, we're both
correct, sort of, if you changed 'ordinary joe' to 'average Mexican'

P Wed, 07/06/2016 - 22:48

N got it right. Situationally, who has power varies quite drasti-
cally, and in each individual situation that occurs in mexico, the
head of state of mexico probably doesn't have any direct power.
This is because they are not involved at all in most situations that
occur in mexico. The only reason they have any influence is
because other individuals buy into the things they say. It's the

9

other individuals who often, but obviously not always, have
significant power over each other. Clearly also there are many
individuals and reified organizations other than the 'other
individuals' mentioned above who also are believed in by the
'other individuals'.

v Thu, 07/07/2016 - 23:46

No he didn't

Your vague abstract sophistry doesn't impress me. Looks like I
have to break out the crayons. The President of Mexico (or any
president) is part of the government, in fact, the head of the
government. The President is the leader of the governing party.

He helps sets policy of the party, and the policies are implement-
ed by the government. Implementation of policies is done
through law enforcement, and law enforcement means cops, who
enforce the laws on average individual joes. Now, if you are
suggesting that governments somehow have no more power than
the average joe individual, then you fail anarchy 101. The Presi-
dent also has all sorts of license to invoke things like emergency
powers, appoint judges to the supreme court, and pass executive
orders directly from him.

No average individual joe has anything like those kind of powers.
To say otherwise is insane.

This is not 'reifying' government, it is accurately describing the
powers relevant to the government, powers that manifest upon
average individual joes in ways that average individual joes have
no counter force to. The President may only be one person, but
he has more power via an array of institutional forces than any
ordinary citizen.

I'm shocked at the level of your IQ if you can't understand this
basic thing.

P Fri, 07/08/2016 -21:46

Once again, any special or emergency powers and any day to day
decisions made by some high up person are extremely unlikely
to directly affect the majority of the population, This is because

the high up person is only one person and cannot possibly
interact with millions.

You seem to be unaware how much individuals self-domesticate
and perpetuate their own submission. Here's a different sort of
anarchy 101 that isn't interested in your tired old inversions of
dominate narratives: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/
columbia-anarchist-league-disarm...

If nearly everyone stopped believing in government tomorrow,
"it", i.e. those who still believe, probably politicians and maybe
some cops, would be so severely outnumbered they would either
surrender or be eliminated in a day. This is not to suggest this
sort of popular front would be possible or desirable, but simply
to illustrate more accurately that the state is based on nothing
but social relationships, especially relationships of belief. There
are many examples of small or large groups of individuals who
stop believing and achieve interesting things. Despite their faults,
the the paris commune and rojava are very well known exam-
ples. In each of these and every other case, if more people had
remained committed to government, less success would have
been had. The opposite is true as well.

Additionally, detournement campaigns have historically sub-
verted power through semiotic take-overs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Alternative

Anonymous Fri, 07/08/2016 - 22:57

"Once again, any special or emergency powers and any day to
day decisions made by some high up person are extremely
unlikely to directly affect the majority of the population, This is
because the high up person is only one person and cannot
possibly interact with millions. "

Yes yes yes... and that's why State politics and their "democracy"
exist, dumbass.

The State is an organized and instituted web of relations, not the
Man pushing buttons from his luxury lair in the Alps (even tho
sometimes...).

11

Anonymous Mon, 07/04/2016 - 11:59

"Perhaps this leaves more questions than answers at this point, but
one thing is clear: what’s done is done."

Here's the summation, in their own words. Basically the same POV
as their critics, a hint of doubt and slamming the door on any
serious self-reflection. The problem isn't necessarily a moral one,
more about what military jargon calls "soft targets" and that
nagging feeling that you're just one more narcissistic asshole which
is THE problem with civilization (the sum of its parts). The solu-
tion is to shift the crosshairs away from people and on to their most
expensive toys, that road actually leads out and away from the trap.
Nothing wrong with self-defence but collective punishment?
Plenty of a-moral critiques there, along with the obvious ones.
The enemy uses collective punishment, we do not.

O Mon, 07/04/2016 - 12:45

Indeed

There is also the case of dubious definition. All is fair game by
their definition. But we are all complicit in what is happening
now. So ITS can invoke their moral high ground, which perhaps
is not a reason to reject them, but says a bit about their impo-
tence. They go on about wild nature and such, but have a rather
anthropocentric logic. What is wild nature? Who's is it to
defend? They sure pull a cultist line, what with their whole
'pagan gods' and all. If that is not a slippery slope then I do not
know what. It sounds more like blood feud / blood sacrifice than
war to me. As they say they act on behalf of their pagan authori-
ties (or at least that is the one authority they recognize). Behold
the new priesthood! I do not see how we need more religious
fanatics with a blade to wet, nor how this has much to do with
previous acts of violence in a revolutionary struggle.

I'll happily support violent struggle, as I'll support non-violent
ones as well. But ITS is bullshit and by their own admission has
little to do within an anarchist (non-authoritarian) tradition and
belongs firmly within the authoritarian tradition.

Anonymous Mon, 07/04/2016 - 12:55

Yeah, students of history know that before the conquistadors
showed up, there was already a powerful elite established in the
region, spilling blood to please their "gods". I'm not a pacifist
either and I've seen my share of death already, literally smelled it.
It's nothing but a sobering reality unless you're a sick fuck or a
poser. Those are your only two choices.

e Mon, 07/04/2016- 13:31

the POV of nihilist eco-extremism is the POV of civilization; i.e.
it is rational judgemental in a binary us-versus-them sense, this
us-versus-them moral judgement on the part of the nihilist
eco-extremist is dressed up as 'instinctive' by the notional
'purposeless' aspect, which is compared to the bee stinging
'instinctively', without thought of winning.

'without thought of winning' is an anthropomorphism that
doesn't come into it in the case of nature/the bee. the bee's
behaviour is relationally induced rather than rationally directed,
it's like the man who tries to fend off a pushy crowd that is
encroaching on his pregnant wife and child trapped in a con-
strained space, or the mother bear fighting off encroachment of
others into the space in which her vulnerable cubs are situated,
bee, man and bear will 'sting' anything that is encroaching on
their vulnerable activity, in this sort of relational-situational
dynamic, there is no rational analysis to categorize the encroach-
ing thing, that makes a moral judgement as to whether it is good
and one of us or bad and one of them, ... and there is no deliber-
ate plan set up to 'take him out'.

the 'stinging without the motivation to win' does not merit the
label 'instinctive', it is an 'anthropomorphism' that paints a thin,
transparent glaze of pseudo-naturalism over the top of the usual
rational-judgemental mechanics that have brought, and con-
tinue to bring us 'civilization', nihilist eco-extremists are no way
"the Wild Nature that is left, the last of the last.", they are another
one of civilization's aberrations.

'instinctive action' may be without a final goal in mind (e.g. in the

13

sense of natural amor fati), but action without a final goal in mind
does not define 'instinctive action' (i.e. in this case it is more in
the unnatural sense of odio fati, which comes from the dualist
ego-self's reaction to the knowledge that, in life seen as winner-
loser competition, he will never be able to win the result he wants
so he may as well 'go out' as sore losers do, by throwing a wrench
into the works of those who appear to him to be 'winning')]

P Mon, 07/04/201 6 - 2 1 :42

This is the only interesting critique of ITS/RS that I have ever
read. However, it seems to be only a critique of ITS/RS and their
specific ideas and actions, and not necessarily all potential
"nihilist eco-extremism". If ITS had spent some time studying
the situationists, this critique would not apply.

w Mon, 07/04/2016 - 13:20

They are the product of civilization and of anarchism's general
failure to offer an alternative. They are the product of catholic
Mexico and of Nietche's deicide. I don't have any criticism beyond
the possibility that they suggest that their approach/analysis/tactics
should be widespread. In my view every little corner of the world
has to respond to our enslavement and the destruction of our
habitats in whatever way each area/group/person/clan chooses. I
would not join them. I have my own ideas and activities as an
anti-civ/post-left person. I could argue point by point with them,
but then again I could do that with folks from every tendency. No
one sees the whole mountain. Every anarchist who is frightened by
their amorality, misanthropy, megalomania, etc., should realize that
it won't be in debating with them that they might alter their course.
They are not interested in that. Those opposed can only pursue
their own internal/ external anarchist undertakings with a similar
passion, true to oneself, critics be damned, until the necessity or
interest in a change of direction and outlook forces one. In this way
the total sum of activities and relations within anarchist circles will
be altered and perhaps then ITS will be affected somehow.

Anonymous Mon, 07/04/2016 - 15:50

This entire thread is bs. It's just moving goal posts on ITS just
because. People are treating this like an indiscriminate attack. How
is stabbing the head of services for the chemistry department for
the largest university in Latin America INDISCRIMINATE? You
know what chemistry departments do right? You think that guy
was innocent fine, then who's guilty? His boss? The department
chair? The university rector? The people who fund them? Face it,
you're just butthurt that you're never going to carry out your ideal
action so all you got is lazy criticism because you think THEY
should. Funny thing is if you carried out that action ITS would be
the first to applaud, they aren't nearly as sectarian as you think
they are. But you're not gonna do shit so their criticism stands.

Anonymous Mon, 07/04/2016 - 16:58

The indiscriminate thing is a longstanding criticism based on
their own rhetoric from earlier attacks. You don't think anyone
here is stupid enough to post something like - Stabbing univer-
sity administrators is where it's at!

Their target selection still seems really bizarre to me but it's
discriminate, I'll give you that.

EE Tue, 07/05/2016 - 12:35

Did Emile Henry wring his hands over who was sitting in Cafe
Terminus on 9 December 1893? Did Ravachol give any visible
fucks about who was walking by the house of the judge or the
prosecutor of the Fourmies defendants (March 11, 1892, March
22, 1892, respectively) when he planted his infernal devices?
"Question two: do you really really O'Really think that anarchists
are that stupid, as to be supporting that BULLSHIT? You're
dealing with rationalists for the most part here... not some cultist
sheep/drones." Both men, and hundreds of others of our terror-
ist comrades who have bombed, expropriated, shot, assassinated
and poisoned have been supported by the anarchist community,
globally. And I guess following your logic that Goldman, Berk-
man, Makhno, Sacco, Vanzetti, Durruti, Ascaso, Kropotkin,

15

were all just stupid to voice support.

Anonymous Tue, 07/05/2016 - 10:56

some individual must be identifiably guilty, so we can simply kill
him. it can't be the system and our relationships, it can't be
what's inside me. can it??

Anonymous Tue, 07/05/2016 - 00:22

"Judeo-Christian" is an annoying term

Why y'all dragging Judaism into it. You wanna make a point that
whatever is like Christianity ("modern anarchism", as said one
commenter above), that's chill. But Judaism is kinda not compa-
rable most of the time, at least not without also talking about
Islam, in which case y'all should use "Abrahamic".

/pet peeve

Anonymous Tue, 07/05/2016 - 19:17

The Christians are judaeizing everything. Who do you think
Christians are anyway?

sh Fri, 07/08/2016 - 05:59

What even is "judaizing", dude.

And: Christians are, at this historical moment, a religious group
that is actually quite distinct from Jews, despite the fact that the
earliest group of people we can reasonably call Christians - like,
really really early - can be considered a Jewish sect.

There has been close to two millenia of divergent theological
development. Not that there's never been crossover back and
forth, but it really isn't enough to constitute the reality of any-
thing "Judeo-Christian". So yeah, this word is, most of the time,
just a way to say "Christian" but to clumsily lump Jews into that
group as well, erasing difference.

It's annoying.

Anonymous Wed, 07/06/2016 - 17:36

Definitely aware of all the propaganda-of-the-deed icons (like

Ravachol) and I'm not sure why anyone would suggest that
people are critiquing propaganda-of-the-deed out of ignorance
of anarchist history.

I'm an unrepentant militant, I've been one of the kids in the
black bloc that get fetishized by people like EE and demonized
by almost everyone else, many times! I'm not interested in
declawing struggle at all, far from it. I think we're actually safer
when the power structures consider us to be a moderate threat
because it makes them think more carefully about attacking us.

I offer all this as context for this simple statement. The ITS
approach is a dead-end, just like most passive reformist activism.
They're the two extremes of the script that keeps everyone
alienated and easy targets for the counterinsurgency forces. The
more interesting territory lies in the middle.

Anonymous Wed, 07/06/2016 - 22:55

The ITS approach is a dead end for who? Themselves or you/
mass movements?

Anonymous Wed, 07/06/2016 - 23:30

For anyone IMHO. A lack of imagination is on display, just like
with activism. Tired script.

Anonymous Wed, 07/06/2016 - 23:40

Good comparison. As ITS definitely is some kind of activism's
evil twin. Or a negative mirror image, if you may prefer. Con-
trasts are reversed, yet the voids are still full of nothing.

Anonymous Thu, 07/07/2016 - 07:29

Certainly not for themselves, and maybe not for their supporters.
They have found an odd sort of liberation not possible elsewhere,
though it's not likely this will spread beyond these people.

17

In the interest of showcasing not only the formal writings of
anarchists, but also the intelligence that happens in dialog,
even (or sometimes especially) in dialog with anonymous
strangers, anarchistnews.org presents this series: a collection
of interesting original pieces, followed by some of the best of
the responses to them from commenters on the website.

$2